You're certainly right about that, but like the rest of us, you're wrong about some other things.
The study of law is a study of the history of a civilization. The first laws are pretty simple, i.e. "Thou shalt not...," etc. As a people - a civilization - continue to interact, new problems arise that require either new laws or refinements of the old ones. Here in the United States we've gone from a single page (The Constitution) to a whole shelf of books - and that only covers Federal law.
Most modern court decisions rely heavily on earlier decisions, in part so there won't be a sudden, revolutionary new interpretation of so-called "settled" law, but mostly because the courts really don't want to go out on a limb and have to defend their decisions.
The question of jury nullification is anything but new and has been mentioned in a number of previous cases.
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1789.
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts" Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1796.
"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902.
Regarding law and what some might consider to be bad laws:
"All laws which are repugnant to The Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442.
There are other instances and you can find them yourself... if you want to. On the other hand, if you're just trolling... have a good day.
I didn't say it was new.
But, it is not part of current jurisprudence for juries to make judgements on the law. They judge facts in light of the law.